Chicago doesn't care about its architecture.

[bnk]

I think the OP penned this article.


http://www.chicagomag.com/real-estat...on-in-Chicago/

Is Chicago Experiencing a Historic Preservation Crisis?

Lots of buildings flagged by preservationists for their importance have come down in recent years. 2018 could be just as bad.


By AJ LaTrace

Published Wednesday at 9:00 a.m.

In the West Loop, excavators can still be seen at the site of what was just a few weeks ago a rare industrial building designed by D. H. Burnham & Company, the storied firm led by Daniel Burnham, the legendary Chicago city planner and lead architect for the 1893 World’s Fair. Built over 100 years ago, the three-story masonry building at 1217-1227 W. Washington Boulevard was unceremoniously demolished in April, with its elaborate ornamentation and glazed brick reduced to a pile of rubble.


...

[SpireGuy]

RIP

Wicker Park1 by Chicagooan, on Flickr

[floor23]

The very reason Chicago demolishes its historical buildings is what also makes Chicago a pioneer in skyscrapers/high-rise development. Chicago wouldn't be the city it is today if it was filled with preservationists. I look at a city like Seattle where historical preservation laws are beyond absurd and many ugly buildings get saved. Nimbys love preservation laws and its a great way to stop development of any kind.

Plus with the financial situation in Illinois being so dire, my guess is the local governments are doing anything they can to fill their coffers. Nothing creates jobs and generates tax revenue as easily as real estate development.

[SpireGuy]

5.22.18 2 by Chicagooan, on Flickr
5.22 by Chicagooan, on Flickr

[SpireGuy]

RIP
5.23.18 1 by Chicagooan, on Flickr
5.23.18 3 by Chicagooan, on Flickr
5.23.18 2 by Chicagooan, on Flickr

[bnk]

1881 is post fire by a decade. I do not see this as an actual survivor of the Great Chicago Fire.

Not saying it needs to go it looks fine to me from the outside, just pointing a posted fib out.


The 2 flat for a new 3 flat is a good deal IMO. That 2 Flat sux

[pip]

Originally Posted by SpireGuy

RIP
5.23.18 1 by Chicagooan, on Flickr
5.23.18 3 by Chicagooan, on Flickr
5.23.18 2 by Chicagooan, on Flickr

Thanks for these posts.

[glowrock]

The two-flat is terrible and is no loss whatsoever. The circa-1881 house, on the other hand, is beautiful (at least on the outside), and I'm sad to see it's about to disappear. As bnk said, not a survivor of the Great Fire, though, at least assuming the 1881 date is accurate!

Chicago preservationists need to choose their battles wisely, as they are entirely outnumbered by pro-developer interests at this time. Don't fight to preserve run of the mill buildings simply because they're old. Fight to preserve the good stuff, the nice stuff, buildings that would simply be tragedies to lose to the wrecking ball/bulldozer!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Mr Roboto]

^agreed, need to pick the right battles. I love grey stones, losing many of those is a tragedy along with some others. But a lot of this is meh as well.

[lio45]

I would hope any survivor of the Great Fire of 1871 would be sacred nowadays, the same way I'm pretty sure San Francisco would never allow the demolition of anything predating the 1906 quake.

How come there are enough idiots with more money than taste in that city for this to work? You wouldn't be able to sell me a modern piece of crap building if I can instead get a century-old greystone in the same neighborhood. If everybody was like us, they'd all get restored, there would barely be any demand for the newer stuff.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by lio45

I would hope any survivor of the Great Fire of 1871 would be sacred nowadays, the same way I'm pretty sure San Francisco would never allow the demolition of anything predating the 1906 quake.

How come there are enough idiots with more money than taste in that city for this to work? You wouldn't be able to sell me a modern piece of crap building if I can instead get a century-old greystone in the same neighborhood. If everybody was like us, they'd all get restored, there would barely be any demand for the newer stuff.

I don't think any pre fire buildings that are left are in real jeopardy of demolition unless someone can post some prove of that. Most of the Pre 1871 structures are already gone, and not all of it was due to the fire. Time took its toll first. Any old pre fire houses/wooden buildings were more than likely replaced before WWI already.

Several of us have stated that the 1881 one building is likely worth saving.

But it is a lie to say it was build before the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 by a decade. This lie is a ploy to save the building that should be saved IMO but it is not a survivor of the Great Fire.


Like me and Glowrock said that other 2 flat is a disaster and needs to be replaced, luckily for the city and future owners by a modern 3 flat. The old 2 flat looks likely from the middle 1950's and it looks like it is collapsing upon itself.

Once again I repeat myself. I am in favor of saving the 1881 house out of respect and quality of the external components of the building. Heck even if the inside was a disaster and had to be re piped and wired it still would be worth saving IMO but that could very well be very expensive.



If I was a preservationist I would focus on the post fire 1881 building and not the 1955-60 two flat that looks not worth saving at all.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by bnk

I don't think any pre fire buildings that are left are in real jeopardy of demolition

THIS building was pre fire and just demo'd a couple years ago...the sad reality is, if a building isn't landmarked in Chicago, it is not safe.

Hell, even Daniel Burnham buildings are safe from demolition.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

THIS building was pre fire and just demo'd a couple years ago...the sad reality is, if a building isn't landmarked in Chicago, it is not safe.

Hell, even Daniel Burnham buildings are safe from demolition.

Wait, now, yes that was a loss but give me a break—that was in the Loop and replaced by a friggin skyscraper!

I think the majority here are lamenting when a neighborhood historic building is being demo’d for something that isn’t even substantially denser (and sometimes even less dense).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think the majority here are lamenting when a neighborhood historic building is being demo’d for something that isn’t even substantially denser (and sometimes even less dense).

and >90% of the time, FAR uglier.l

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wait, now, yes that was a loss but give me a break—that was in the Loop and replaced by a friggin skyscraper!

I think the majority here are lamenting when a neighborhood historic building is being demo’d for something that isn’t even substantially denser (and sometimes even less dense).

I'd much much rather have that pre fire building on Lake St that the ugly "skyscraper" that replaced it. Have actually seen the building that went up, and even worse, seen what went up on the sliver of land that occupied the pre fire building? I have no idea how you could defend that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I'd much much rather have that pre fire building on Lake St that the ugly "skyscraper" that replaced it. Have actually seen the building that went up, and even worse, seen what went up on the sliver of land that occupied the pre fire building? I have no idea how you could defend that.

Yeah, it's a blank dark brick wall - at first I was like WTF is that even a building? (the train rails block the view of the "skyscraper".)

They could've made it slightly narrower, replacing the parkade only. I'm pretty sure the business case for it would've been similar.

Or U-shaped, eliminating that stupid little pub with the fake medieval beam-and-plaster architecture...... (just so it's clear, I'm not serious, it would look pretty bad, but that pub is pretty horrible)

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by glowrock

The two-flat is terrible and is no loss whatsoever.

Terrible seems rather strong, considering it's a pretty typical Chicago two flat. What's so bad about it? Pretty nice stonework flourishes (actual stone at that), brick patterns, and generous porches, original hardwood.... certainly better than whatever will be replacing it. Could maybe use some tuckpointing but otherwise no big deal

[JManc]

I actually like the two-flat. It's looking worse for wear but there is nothing wrong with the style or design other than it's not 19th century or pre-war. In 50 years, we will be nostalgic for this era of construction. Just like we are now with pre-war which cities could not tear down fast enough and redevelop.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

I actually like the two-flat. It's looking worse for wear but there is nothing wrong with the style or design other than it's not 19th century or pre-war.

that 2-flat is definitely pre-war. probably from the '20s.


5.22 by Chicagooan, on Flickr

just look at the masonry detailing around the entry door. post-war 2-flats in chicago never have that kind of traditional stone ornamentation.

also, post-war flat buildings in chicago rarely (never?) have have front porches, and typically look something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0003...7i13312!8i6656

[the urban politician]

Because demolitions are easier to see, they get more attention.

But what many people aren't seeing is the sheer volume of renovations happening as well. In the past 9 years, since the recession, people like myself scooped up a ton of buildings in the city's neighborhoods, spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and gave them a new lease on life. New plumbing, electric, HVAC, roof repairs, etc etc.

We need to not always focus on the negative.

In addition, a lot of frame buidings have been demolished, and unless they were gorgeous Victorians I'm okay with that, because generally they have been replaced with masonry structures. I would like us to continue our move towards being a masonry dominated city, a process that started after 1871 and continues to this day.

Having said that, I gut rehabbed 3 frame buildings and kept them as frame structures (only to keep nonconforming grandfathered zoning status), but otherwise I too prefer masonry structures whenever I get the chance.